Drug Use Forecasting in 24 Cities in the United States, 1987-1997 (ICPSR 9477)

Principal Investigator(s):
United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice

Summary:

The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program measures levels of
and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in the United
States. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used
by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported
dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug
treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of
offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of
drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation
in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the
arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the
arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status,
and the charge at the time of booking. The recently modified DUF
interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the
1996 and 1997 data) also collected information about the arrestee's
use of 15 drugs, including recent and past use (e.g., 3-day and 30-day
drug use) of each of these drugs, age at first use, and whether the
arrestee had ever been dependent on drugs. In the original DUF
interview instrument (used for the 1987 to 1994 data and part of the
1995 data), the information collected was the same as above except
that the use of 22 drugs was queried, and the age at which the
arrestee first became dependent on the drug was included. Arrestees
also were questioned in the original instrument about their history of
intravenous drug use, whether the consideration of AIDS influenced
whether they shared needles, history of drug and alcohol treatment,
their past and current drug treatment needs, and how many persons they
had sex with during the past 12 months. Finally, arrestees were asked
to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of
ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone,
benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon),
barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines
were confirmed by gas chromatography). The Gun Addendum Data (Parts
27, 35, and 37) contain variables on topics such as arrestees'
encounters with guns, whether they agreed or disagreed with statements
about guns, gun possession, how they obtained handgun(s), whether they
were armed with a gun at their arrest or during crimes, and if they
had ever used a gun against another person. The Heroin Addendum Data,
1995 (Part 29) contains information that was formerly covered in the
main annual file in 1992-1994, but in 1995 was revised and prepared as
a separate dataset.

The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program measures levels of
and trends in drug use among persons arrested and booked in the United
States. The data address the following topics: (1) types of drugs used
by arrestees (based on self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported
dependency on drugs, (3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug
treatment, (4) the relationship between drug use and certain types of
offenses, and (5) the relationship between self-reported indicators of
drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation
in the project is voluntary, and all information collected from the
arrestees is anonymous and confidential. The data include the
arrestee's age, race, gender, educational attainment, marital status,
and the charge at the time of booking. The recently modified DUF
interview instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the
1996 and 1997 data) also collected information about the arrestee's
use of 15 drugs, including recent and past use (e.g., 3-day and 30-day
drug use) of each of these drugs, age at first use, and whether the
arrestee had ever been dependent on drugs. In the original DUF
interview instrument (used for the 1987 to 1994 data and part of the
1995 data), the information collected was the same as above except
that the use of 22 drugs was queried, and the age at which the
arrestee first became dependent on the drug was included. Arrestees
also were questioned in the original instrument about their history of
intravenous drug use, whether the consideration of AIDS influenced
whether they shared needles, history of drug and alcohol treatment,
their past and current drug treatment needs, and how many persons they
had sex with during the past 12 months. Finally, arrestees were asked
to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of
ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone,
benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon),
barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines
were confirmed by gas chromatography). The Gun Addendum Data (Parts
27, 35, and 37) contain variables on topics such as arrestees'
encounters with guns, whether they agreed or disagreed with statements
about guns, gun possession, how they obtained handgun(s), whether they
were armed with a gun at their arrest or during crimes, and if they
had ever used a gun against another person. The Heroin Addendum Data,
1995 (Part 29) contains information that was formerly covered in the
main annual file in 1992-1994, but in 1995 was revised and prepared as
a separate dataset.

Guidelines for Applying for Restricted Data

Before you begin an application you will need the following information to complete the form

General Requirements:

appointment at research institution; appointment must be under the jurisdiction of the receiving institution

degree requirements (possibly doctorate)

Must be submitted:

project description

IRB approval

approved security plan

roster of research and IT staff who can access or view the data or computer where data are hosted.

confidentiality pledges for all people on roster

Some require:

CV's

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Any public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Dataset(s)

WARNING: Because this study has many datasets, the download all files option has been suppressed, and you will need to download one dataset at a time.

Study Description

Citation

United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice. Drug Use Forecasting in 24 Cities in the United States, 1987-1997. ICPSR09477-v2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1998-07-15. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09477.v2

(1) SPSS export files are available for all data files
except Parts 3 and 6. (2) The codebooks for the 1996 and 1997 data and
the data collection instruments for 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 are
provided as Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format
was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using
PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on
how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided in the README
file on the diskette version of this study for the years 1987-1995 and
through the ICPSR Website on the Internet. (3) The data collection
instruments for 1987-1993 are available only in hardcopy form upon
request from ICPSR. (4) In response to recommendations by the
Government Accounting Office (GAO), significant modifications were
made to the DUF survey instrument midway through 1995, resulting in
two different survey instruments used that year. The new survey
instrument (1995 Survey, Part 2) retains many of the variables from
the original DUF questionnaire (1995 Survey, Part 1), as well as
adding more detailed questions. (5) In efforts to make the DUF data
more "user friendly," the coding scheme and formatting of the 1994
data and 1995 Survey, Part 1, data were changed slightly from previous
years and, further, the coding scheme and formatting of the 1995
Survey, Part 2, data differ somewhat from the 1994 and 1995 Survey,
Part 1, data.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program was
designed to estimate the prevalence of drug use among persons in the
United States who are arrested and booked, and to detect changes in
trends in drug use among this population. Research addressing the
prevalence of drug use typically does not include the population of
offenders and therefore may underestimate levels of drug use in the
United States. The DUF program makes an important contribution to
research on the prevalence of drug use by sampling persons who are not
sampled by other surveys of drug use. Moreover, the DUF data provide
important information that may be used by law enforcement and drug
treatment officials to allocate resources, design prevention
strategies, and gauge the impact of local efforts to reduce drug
use. The following is a sample of the questions addressed by the data:
What types of drugs do arrestees use? Among arrestees reporting drug
use, how many report that they are dependent on drugs? To what extent
do arrestees report a need for alcohol/drug treatment? Is the
likelihood of drug use greater for persons arrested for certain types
of offenses? Finally, what is the relationship between self-reported
drug use and indicators of drug use based on urinalysis?

Study Design:
The DUF program is a nonexperimental survey of
drug use among arrestees. In addition to supplying information on
self-reported drug use, at the conclusion of the interview arrestees
are asked to provide a urine specimen which is screened for the
presence of ten illicit drugs. Between 1987 and 1997 the DUF program
has collected information about drug use among arrestees in 24 sites
across the United States, although the number of data collection sites
varies slightly from year to year (see the description of the sample
below). Samples of arrestees for the DUF program are drawn from
booking facilities within each of the following sites and thus are
limited to the types of arrestees booked at these facilities. In 11
sites (Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Kansas
City, Omaha, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Washington, DC), the
catchment area represents the central city (Kansas City ceased being a
DUF site after 1992). In ten additional sites (Dallas, Ft. Lauderdale,
Indianapolis, Miami, New Orleans, Manhattan [New York City], Phoenix,
Portland, San Antonio, and San Jose), the catchment area is the
county, parish, or borough. The city of Denver is Denver County and
its entirety, and the city of St. Louis is also a county. The
catchment area for Los Angeles includes part of the city and part of
the county, and in Birmingham and San Diego the catchment area
includes the entire central city and part of the county. Each quarter,
trained local staff at these sites obtain voluntary and anonymous
urine specimens from detained arrestees who have been in a booking
facility for not more than 48 hours. The number of persons interviewed
and the demographic composition of those interviewed varies somewhat
across the 24 sites that have participated in the DUF program. On
average, each site attempts to obtain a sample of 225 adult males per
quarter. Data are collected from about 100 adult females each quarter
at 21 of the 24 sites. Each quarter, 12 sites collect data from
juvenile males and 8 collect data from juvenile females. Sites in
which juveniles are interviewed attempt to obtain samples of 100 boys
and 100 girls, although in many sites these quotas are not met due to
the small number of juvenile arrestees from which to draw samples. The
following procedures govern data collection in the DUF program. Male
arrestees are selected by charge according to the following order of
priority: (1) nondrug felony charges, (2) nondrug misdemeanor charges,
(3) drug felony charges, and (4) drug misdemeanor charges. Males
arrested for the following minor offenses are not sampled: vagrancy,
loitering, or traffic violations (including driving while
intoxicated). An exception to these general procedures is Omaha, where
all arrestees are surveyed. In order to obtain a sufficient sample of
adult female arrestees and juvenile arrestees, all adult female
arrestees and all juvenile male and female arrestees are surveyed
regardless of the nature of the crime for which they have been
arrested. Individuals arrested on new charges who also have
outstanding warrants are selected only on the basis of the new
charge's position in the priority list, and the outstanding warrants
are not considered. In addition to these selection criteria, sites are
requested to survey no more than 20 percent of adult males arrested
for drug offenses. To remain within the limit, the proportion of drug
offenders interviewed is calculated each evening of data collection.

Description of Variables:
The data include the age, race, sex, educational
attainment, marital status, employment status, and living
circumstances of a sample of persons arrested and booked in the United
States. The recently modified DUF interview instrument (used for part
of the 1995 data and all of the 1996 and 1997 data), also included
detailed questions about each arrestee's self-reported use of 15
drugs. The original DUF interview instrument (used for the 1987 to
1994 data and part of the 1995 data) elicited information about the
use of 22 drugs and the age at which the arrestee first became
dependent on the drug. For each drug type, arrestees were asked
whether they had ever used the drug, the age at which they first used
the drug, whether they had used the drug within the past three days,
how many days they had used the drug with the past month, whether they
had ever needed or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were
dependent on the drug at the time of the interview. Data from the new
interview instrument also include information about whether arrestees
had ever injected drugs and whether they were influenced by drugs when
the police said they committed the crimes for which they were
arrested. The data also include information about whether the arrestee
had been to an emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether
he or she had prior arrests in the last 12 months. Data from the DUF
original interview instrument also include information about
arrestees' preferred method for using cocaine, how much money
arrestees spend on drugs in an average week, how many persons they had
sex with during the past 12 months, whether they ever injected drugs,
whether they injected drugs within the past six months, whether they
ever shared needles, whether they shared needles within the past six
months, and whether the consideration of AIDS influenced whether they
shared needles. Data from both versions of the DUF interview provide
information about each arrestee's history of drug/alcohol treatment,
including whether they ever received drug/alcohol treatment and
whether they needed drug/alcohol treatment. In addition to the survey,
a urine specimen provided by the arrestee was screened (by the drug
testing system EMIT) for the following ten drug types: marijuana,
opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone, benzodiazepines (Valium),
methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon), barbiturates, and
amphetamines. All positive results for amphetamines were confirmed by
gas chromatography to eliminate positives that may be caused by
over-the-counter drugs. Finally, the following variables included in
the data were collected for use by local law enforcement officials at
each site: precinct (precinct of arrest) and law (penal law code
associated with the crime for which the subject was arrested). The Gun
Addendum Data (Parts 27, 35, and 37) contain variables on topics such
as arrestees' encounters with guns, whether they agreed or disagreed
with statements about guns, gun possession, how they obtained
handgun(s), whether they were armed with a gun at their arrest or
during crimes, and if they had ever used a gun against another
person. The Heroin Addendum Data, 1995 (Part 29), contains information
that was formerly covered in the main annual file in 1992-1994, but in
1995 was revised and prepared as a separate dataset.

Response Rates:
Approximately 90 percent of eligible arrestees
agreed to be interviewed. Of those who consented to the interview,
approximately 80 percent provided a urine specimen. The dataset
includes only those persons who both agreed to be interviewed and
provided a urine specimen.

Presence of Common Scales:
None.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release: 1991-03-05

Version History:

1998-07-15 Data for this collection have been transferred to
the NACJD Private Use/Restricted Access Archive. Users interested in
obtaining the data should refer to the RESTRICTIONS statement in this
data collection description.